List of Attacks

The Myth:

Muhammad was
a Forgiving Man

"Our Prophet (peace be upon him) forgave all who slighted him, never once taking vengeance."

The Truth:

Muhammad did forgive, but his grace was
conspicuously limited to those who accepted Islam (often under
duress). Modern-day
apologists are prone to “forgetting” this as they attempt to make the case that
their prophet was a sort of Christ-like figure. Obscure details are
cherry-picked from Muhammad’s early life and divorced from context, even as more
numerous and less ambiguous events presenting a much different picture are conveniently omitted.

Consider this little gem from CAIR’s Ibrahim
Hooper:

“Even when the prophet was in a position of power, he chose the path of
kindness and reconciliation.

When he returned to Mecca after years of exile
and personal attacks, he did not take revenge on the people of the city, but
instead offered a general amnesty.” (source)

Hooper’s definition of “general amnesty” is
amazingly selective. Muhammad’s biographer lists at least
ten Meccans whom the
prophet of Islam ordered put to death for personal insults or for
apostasy (leaving Islam). If the fact that an entire city wasn’t put to the
sword after being conquered by a man against whom it
did not want to fight is
proof of forgiveness, then we would have to say that the bar is being set quite
low.

In fact, we have noted elsewhere at least five good reasons to believe that Muhammad was
not a forgiving man.

The fact that he
attacked Meccan caravans that
were not attacking him, literally killing innocent drivers because of their
city’s previous rejection of him.

The brutal execution of 800 Jews at
Qurayza
who had killed no one but belonged to a tribe whose leader was pressed to
switch loyalties in a time of conflict.

The executions ordered at Medina of those who
had insulted him (here,
here and
here).

The executions ordered at Mecca of those who
had insulted him.

It was Muhammad’s unwillingness to forgive the people
of Mecca for rejecting him that drove him to attack them at every opportunity,
even though they were not bothering him at Medina (until being provoked). Though given ample
opportunity to move on, he refused. Instead the prophet of Islam incited his
followers with verses ‘from Allah’ that demanded they “drive out” the Meccans
from their own city – purely out of revenge, personal superiority and
entitlement.

Those who were spared at Mecca, following its
capture by an army of 10,000 Muslims, were allowed to live because they
either had nothing to do with the former harassment of Muhammad or because they
accepted Islam. The allegiance of both groups was needed by the prophet of
Islam to expand his political authority over surrounding tribes through military
expansion. In a matter of months, Muhammad was no longer in need of their
services and ordered the eviction all those who refused to convert. Anyone
who declined to embrace his religion was
chased from their own city at the point of a sword (see Qur'an Sura 9).

Interestingly, one of the neighboring towns that Muhammad
opportunistically attacked after taking Mecca was Taif. This is somewhat ironic because Muhammad’s
earlier brush with the people of that town is actually noted by contemporary
apologists as an example of his forgiving character! Here, again, is Ibrahim Hooper’s
version:

In another tradition, the prophet was offered the
opportunity to have God punish the people of a town near Mecca who refused the
message of Islam and attacked him with stones. Again, the prophet did not choose
to respond in kind to the abuse. (source)

It bears mentioning that neither the
accounts of Muhammad's "stoning" nor Allah’s "offer" to Muhammad are recorded by the earliest and
most reliable accounts of the episode. Instead, they show that Muhammad
was chased away from the city of Taif with verbal insults after showing up uninvited and
abusing the local religion with insults. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham
279-281).

Hooper is certainly right about Muhammad not
responding in kind, however, since that would have meant insulting the residents
and rejecting their religion (as they had done to him). Instead, the prophet of Islam returned with an
army ten years later and laid siege to the town, killing the defenders and
enslaving their women and children. He even fired stones from a catapult indiscriminately into the town.

His
biographers provide no compelling reason for any of this other than their earlier
rejection of him (unless you count a Muslim foot soldier’s desire to capture a girl from Taif
and impregnate her – Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 874).

The fact that Muhammad returned with an army
casts serious doubt on the later tradition that Hooper cites. If Muhammad rejected the opportunity
to call down Allah’s wrath on the town, then why did he return with military
force as soon as he was able to do so? The only thing that had changed in the
interim was his position of power.

Even if the later (and more questionable) account
of Allah's offer is taken at face value, it relies solely on Muhammad’s word. Just as with
the rest of his communication with Allah, no one else was there to witness the conversation.
Is it really credible that Muhammad actually had the power to call down divine
punishment on a town? Why then was a later siege necessary – particularly since
it cost Muslim lives (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 876)?

According to biographers, Muhammad originally
went to Taif with the hope of forming a new military alliance against the
Quraish tribe of Mecca. Interestingly,Muhammad later had people murdered for
supposedly trying to do the same thing to him. For this reasons,
apologists often insist
that it was necessary for reasons of self-defense. But this makes no sense
if Muhammad truly had the wrath of Allah at his beck and call. Muslims
cannot have it both ways.

Another example that proves both the scarcity of
anecdote showing Muhammad to be a forgiving man - and the desperation of
contemporary apologists to compensate - is the repetition of this legendary story (again,
we quote CAIR's Ibrahim Hooper):

There was a lady who threw garbage in the path
of the prophet on a daily basis. One day, she didn‘t do it. The prophet went to
inquire about her health, because he thought she might be sick. This lady ended
up converting to Islam. So, that‘s how you respond to people who attack you,
with forgiveness and with kindness.

The story is legendary because it is a legend, which is why apologists do not quote the source. In fact, the
fictitious episode was invented
nearly thirteen centuries after Muhammad died. Not only that, but it was
created as a means of defense against
Islamic intolerance by Abdul Baha, a leading member of the Baha'i faith.
(It didn't work. To this day his followers continue to suffer horrible
persecution
in Muslim countries).

The real story of what happened to the woman who
insulted Muhammad is found in the Hadith:

A Jewish woman used to insult the Prophet and
say bad things about him, so a man strangled her until she died, and the Prophet
ruled that no blood money was due in this case. (Abu Dawud 4349)

The mere fact that apologists like CAIR's Hooper
substitute historical fact with suspect narrative, half-truth and outright
deception to convince the rest of us that
their prophet was a man of forgiveness is evidence that this is not the
case. Muhammad did not reason with people once he had power; he demanded
strict obedience, whihc is confirmed by many episodes of violent retaliation
and punishment.

After killing many of those who insulted him,
Muhammad's
own community was in such fear that they would even killed their own family members
who were critical of him to avoid his vengeance. One man actually killed his own wife in the presence
of their young children:

A blind man had a slave-mother [his wife, the
mother of his children] who used to abuse the Prophet (pbuh) and disparage him.
He forbade her but she did not stop. He rebuked her but she did not give up her
habit. One night she began to slander the Prophet (pbuh) and abuse him. So he
took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who
came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there. Abu
Dawud
38:4348.

Muhammad was told about the gruesome murder the next day
and offered his approval. The woman may have been a
care-giver to the blind, but she had personally insulted him and
therefore deserved to die. That is the lesson in "forgiveness" that the
prophet of Islam left his people.